Prominent lawyer questions DOJ’s effectiveness in Google antitrust trial.

The ongoing Google antitrust trial has caught the attention of prominent lawyer Mr Boies, despite his absence from the courtroom. Relying on media coverage, he suggests that the Department of Justice (DOJ) may not be effectively challenging Google’s trustworthiness.

Comparing the trial to his previous antitrust cases, Mr Boies notes that during the Microsoft case, constant attacks on the company’s credibility were prominent, unlike in the current Google trial. The DOJ’s case revolves around the massive annual payments Google makes to secure its position as the default search engine on Apple devices, smartphones by manufacturers like Samsung, and browsers like Mozilla. It has been revealed during the trial that Google’s payments reached $26 billion in 2021, with $18 billion going to Apple. The DOJ claims that these payments prevent competitors from challenging Google and reduce the incentive for recipients to offer competing search products. They draw parallels to Microsoft’s bundling practices in the 1990s.

Google, however, argues that default search engines can be easily changed and that their payments help lower device costs for consumers. They attribute their search success to innovation rather than monopolistic practices. The verdict of the trial will depend on how Judge Mehta views the default payments. A loss for Google could disrupt the status of default payments, potentially leading Apple to develop a rival search engine. On the other hand, a loss for the DOJ would be a blow to the Biden administration’s antitrust efforts, potentially prompting Congress to draft new laws to regulate big tech.

Source: The Economist